1. From among the distribution schedule prepared on December 21, 2016 by the above court in the auction case involving the exercise of security rights to B real estate by the Ulsan District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 2016, the above court prepared a distribution schedule of KRW 137,000,000 against the Defendant, who is the person holding the provisional attachment right, and the amount of dividends against the Plaintiff, who is the debtor and the owner, KRW 15,709,58.

B. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 82,200,000 out of the amount of KRW 137,000,000 against the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit within seven days thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 7 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership is null and void in the court judgment (Ulsan District Court Decision 2007Da15256 and 2015GaGa27551) on the following grounds: ① defect in the procedure for public sale, ② violation of the matters to be observed in the tender participants, ③ lack of court permission under the former Company Reorganization Act, ④ failure to pay the sale price, ④ failure to pay the sale price, etc. with respect to the acquisition of the ownership of the real estate in the above auction case (Ulsan District Court Decision 2007Da15256 and the appeal court). The instant lawsuit of demurrer

B. A person standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is limited to the creditor or debtor who appeared on the date of distribution and stated an objection against the distribution schedule, but the owner of the object of auction in an auction to exercise the security right shall be included in the said debtor.

However, even if the true owner was not registered as the owner at the time of the registration of commencement of auction, if it was not a “owner” under Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Civil Execution Act, and if it had been registered thereafter and did not report the right to the court of execution, it does not constitute an “person who proves his/her right as the right holder of real estate” under Article 90 subparag. 4 of the same Act.